Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective

Carmel Anderson, Jacki Schirmer, Norman Abjorensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The delay or cancellation of energy infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and nuclear power plants and more recently carbon capture and storage (CCS) because of community resistance and poor public participation processes are well known. Yet, some communities accept these projects with relative ease. The term acceptance implies passivity and as such does not necessarily reflect community approval or support. If acceptance is passive, what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS is achieved with relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are most appropriate for it? This paper attempts to answer these questions through a case study of Australia's Otway Project. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct a human and social capital analysis of the Otway community. An assessment of the project's public participation process was made in light of that analysis. The study found that the community needed capacity-building to enable it to become well-informed about CCS; and to help it develop the negotiation skills necessary to have the proponent address its concerns about the project in a timely manner. An assessment of the Otway public participation process found that while it implemented the majority of best practice principles in public participation, it lacked an adherence to three: transparency, fairness and capacity. A mindfulness of all principles of best practice in public participation would have ensured a fairer and more transparent process.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)687-706
Number of pages20
JournalMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

social capital
human capital
carbon
wind farm
capacity building
research method
nuclear power plant
transparency
public participation
infrastructure
project
energy

Cite this

@article{f8c06777fd5e46fabea5953a972c340d,
title = "Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective",
abstract = "The delay or cancellation of energy infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and nuclear power plants and more recently carbon capture and storage (CCS) because of community resistance and poor public participation processes are well known. Yet, some communities accept these projects with relative ease. The term acceptance implies passivity and as such does not necessarily reflect community approval or support. If acceptance is passive, what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS is achieved with relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are most appropriate for it? This paper attempts to answer these questions through a case study of Australia's Otway Project. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct a human and social capital analysis of the Otway community. An assessment of the project's public participation process was made in light of that analysis. The study found that the community needed capacity-building to enable it to become well-informed about CCS; and to help it develop the negotiation skills necessary to have the proponent address its concerns about the project in a timely manner. An assessment of the Otway public participation process found that while it implemented the majority of best practice principles in public participation, it lacked an adherence to three: transparency, fairness and capacity. A mindfulness of all principles of best practice in public participation would have ensured a fairer and more transparent process.",
keywords = "Acceptance, Carbon capture and storage, Community, Human capital, Public participation, Social capital",
author = "Carmel Anderson and Jacki Schirmer and Norman Abjorensen",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s11027-011-9312-z",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "687--706",
journal = "Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change",
issn = "1381-2386",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "6",

}

Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective. / Anderson, Carmel; Schirmer, Jacki; Abjorensen, Norman.

In: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 17, No. 6, 08.2012, p. 687-706.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring CCS community acceptance and public participation from a human and social capital perspective

AU - Anderson, Carmel

AU - Schirmer, Jacki

AU - Abjorensen, Norman

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - The delay or cancellation of energy infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and nuclear power plants and more recently carbon capture and storage (CCS) because of community resistance and poor public participation processes are well known. Yet, some communities accept these projects with relative ease. The term acceptance implies passivity and as such does not necessarily reflect community approval or support. If acceptance is passive, what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS is achieved with relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are most appropriate for it? This paper attempts to answer these questions through a case study of Australia's Otway Project. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct a human and social capital analysis of the Otway community. An assessment of the project's public participation process was made in light of that analysis. The study found that the community needed capacity-building to enable it to become well-informed about CCS; and to help it develop the negotiation skills necessary to have the proponent address its concerns about the project in a timely manner. An assessment of the Otway public participation process found that while it implemented the majority of best practice principles in public participation, it lacked an adherence to three: transparency, fairness and capacity. A mindfulness of all principles of best practice in public participation would have ensured a fairer and more transparent process.

AB - The delay or cancellation of energy infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and nuclear power plants and more recently carbon capture and storage (CCS) because of community resistance and poor public participation processes are well known. Yet, some communities accept these projects with relative ease. The term acceptance implies passivity and as such does not necessarily reflect community approval or support. If acceptance is passive, what are the characteristics of a community in which the acceptance of CCS is achieved with relative ease; and what best-practice public participation processes are most appropriate for it? This paper attempts to answer these questions through a case study of Australia's Otway Project. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct a human and social capital analysis of the Otway community. An assessment of the project's public participation process was made in light of that analysis. The study found that the community needed capacity-building to enable it to become well-informed about CCS; and to help it develop the negotiation skills necessary to have the proponent address its concerns about the project in a timely manner. An assessment of the Otway public participation process found that while it implemented the majority of best practice principles in public participation, it lacked an adherence to three: transparency, fairness and capacity. A mindfulness of all principles of best practice in public participation would have ensured a fairer and more transparent process.

KW - Acceptance

KW - Carbon capture and storage

KW - Community

KW - Human capital

KW - Public participation

KW - Social capital

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864288987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11027-011-9312-z

DO - 10.1007/s11027-011-9312-z

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 687

EP - 706

JO - Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

JF - Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

SN - 1381-2386

IS - 6

ER -